Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

That people can vote for a man who is only interested in helping the rich does point to some failings amongst the electorate. That the said man can achieve this means that he uses populism as a lie. Parse it any way you like but democracy is in peril if an election is not about globalization/economics but native racism or ultra-nationalism. The 'centre' didn't lose because it didn't speak the language but because neo-liberal economics (and the success of a man like Trump) currently has no viable economic policy alternative and messiah. You cannot attack globalization without addressing sustainability and limits to growth. Keeping going with coal is intellectually untenable.

The Traitor Globalists have been exposed selling out their nation and fellow citizens over decades, during a time of war.

Podesta, Saudi Arabia, Hollywood, Zimbabwe - the clean-up is underway and it is being directed by people with real power who are immune to the sophistry and tactics of The Traitor Globalists.

The usual Traitor Globalist moves of engineering a financial chaos or a revolution and then seeking to escape to a safe haven by way of jet, yatch or helicopter has visited disaster on the Traitor Globalists. Much more is to come.

The author is correct that electorates are angry and they are so for good reason. Current dogmas of competitiveness, open borders for goods and people, the advance of job eating technology, financialization avoiding taxes and assertions to save the world do not spread wealth and opportunity broadly but ever more narrowly. Ordinary Westerners are squeezed and have awfully little bargaining power left. No wonder they sulk and vote for the 'blonds' above. There is doubt that western democracies can deliver anything beyond kicking the can - addicted to cheap money and debt financed perks as many are.

There is an easier, more realistic reason for what appears to be an irrational act in voting for a pathological liar. People, including the less educated, less well read, less thoughtful, absolutely hate being talked down to, by either the GOP or Democratic establishment. And hatred is a powerful motivator self harm as long as it is believed that the crumbling edifice will also harm the hated. Add to that justification from trusted sources such as FOX and Breitbart and we have the makings of voting against ones self interest.

In life, not to mention mere politics, it is important to first understand in what ways those you disagree with are right, not to change your mind although you should consider that, but to understand the limits of your position. As Rodrik himself has well explained elsewhere, the populists are right that free trade and the free movement of labor has in fact hurt a great many people and as he says here their pain has been brushed aside by the mainstream. What the mainstream needs is not some clever repackaging of their unchanged policies but new policies which sustain the core truths of their current policies but honestly acknowledge, address and correct the pain they have inflicted.

I guess the author who is American is not familiar with David Cameron and his great idea of capturing UKIP voters by including a referendum on Brexit on the Tory party's platform. The rest as they say is history.

Given the plethora of adverse "unintended " consequences from prevailing policies in the EU and the US, the entire premise that "reformist" politicians really know what they're doing is questionable to say the least.

With all due respect, Mr Rodrik has missed the point. The upheavals caused by globalization or whatever we wish to call it, have little to do with the honesty of politicians. They are as confused as are the voters are. Better answers on the effects of NAFTA or the German trade surplus or Chinese trade imbalance were not forthcoming, simply because they were not available. Prof. Rodrik seems to believe that better analysis would have headed off the current populist revolts. It is doubtful that this is the case. Revolutions are not tidy, but the results of this one are still relatively manageable -- if that is, we begin to understand what is happening. What is happening is a destruction of an old order. To deal with the new order will require an total new set of skills. it is likely that humanist thinking which helps us attach values to the new situation will be more important than old fashioned policy analysis so favoured by writers on this site.

Regarding "we'll never know" - party of the reason is that on more than a few occasions, the centrist parties attacked their more leftist brothers with as much heat, and with more success, than they directed against their more regressively nativist conservative rivals.

2016 was a cartoonist version of this - We could see a blatant effort to narrow down political choice to a ment of just 2 items - status quo, or nationalism. Which of course is easy to see through by anyone old enough, which is most voters. So thay just furthers the trustworthiness gap.

Regarding signaling - good idea but insufficient, and also unnecessary. Why go for a radical rebranding exercise when you can make a clean start? Worked well enough in 2008.

The punditry needs to let go of all these fantastic counterfactual exercises of "how could we have saved 2016?" ... you couldn't. 2016 was the weird denouement, or really OWS and the Tparty in 2014/2012 were, in the US. But the mortal wound to credibility came decades earlier.

All things are reborn though. Let's just not get too in the way next time.

Finally, someone from the 'mainstream' dares to speak the truth about how and why populists arise. I have always maintained in my weekly columns in India's MINT and in my blog that the real reason for the emergence of Trump or for the manner in which the Brits (outside of London and Scotland) voted for Brexit has to lie in the extremely self-centred behaviour of the elites cloaked in lofty rhetoric of free trade, free movement of labour, etc. The Panama and Paradise papers are proofs of that. In the process, they lost touch with their own people. We seem to have already forgotten that mainstream parties were badly mauled both in France and in Germany.

Even recently in Poland, even ordinary people felt compelled to join the rally of 'Poland for Poles'. Read the news article in Wall Street Journal carefully. Not although who joined the rally were white supremacists.

Rubbishing and dismissing those who do not serve our interests are supposed to be traits of intolerant demagogue-populist leaders?!

Professor Rodrik wants them to walk a fine path between eschewing or rolling back "the free rein given to financial institutions, the bias toward austerity policies, the jaundiced view of government’s role in the economy, the unhindered movement of capital around the world, and the fetishization of international trade" AND

sticking to the inclusive path while keeping their politics "squarely within liberal democratic norms.".

The latter is do-able and should be pursued. But, there is plenty of room for debate on quite what an 'inclusive' path means as opposed to the conception of national identity.

Despite how far Professor Dani Rodrik has stuck his neck out in calling a spade a spade, even he is still stopping short of smashing all the holy policy cows that have either failed or been misdirected or have been abused.

There is a second omission in his piece. He has not called out the central bankers and their role in giving rise to inequality and alienation and hence the rise of populist-nationalists.

The third omission is about how central bankers and ex-Presidents continue to remain cosy or become cosier with Wall Street with their speaking engagements and fees. It is more than about the money they receive. It is a symptom of a malady - the complete capture of the political and policy decision-making arms of the government by a special interest group - the financial sector.

However, I must admit that he has partially addressed this by suggesting, for example, that Hillary Clinton could have signalled something like "I shall never again take a dime from Wall Street." That is the right advice for Presidential contestants but what about ex-Presidents and ex-Central Bank Chairpersons, Governors and voting members?

Indeed, along with the things that he has called upon to be put on the table, even the pejorative tone with which the phrase, 'populist-nationalists' are used should be on the table for such an expression only further serves to alienate.

Since the U.S. Presidential elections, 'the other side' has done nothing like what Rodrik has advocated: 'putting everything on the table'. Instead, they have doubled down further on their failed policies and rhetoric - both economic and social policies included. In doing so, they are doing the best possible service for the popularity of the causes espoused by the populists and for the appeal of the populists too.

That is why, Professor Rodrik's piece is a much needed op.-ed. in calling out the hypocrites and that is where the solutions must start.

"..Even recently in Poland, even ordinary people felt compelled to join the rally of 'Poland for Poles'. It is disappointing to note that the author has written somewhat a armchair intellectual colomn! How about populist and demagogues in and outside Euro-Anglo sphere where religious and fraudulent arguments are used!

In India prime minister Modi a favourite of The West, does not hesitate to use fraudulent arguments to turn India into a Hindu land. He may not use such demagogic reasoning but his surrogates and admirers do on his behalf. Is he not a bigot or populists? Have journey written to expose such fraulent arguments?

The problem is not only the euphonious “lack of candor”. It is lying and deception. For example, Americans are fed up with the likes of “laureate Obama and his fellow connivers, be they in America or Russia or in whatever cave they might retire to after hours. Americans hate Obama not only for his not liking America very much, but also for his knowing, bald-faced lies, lying through his teeth about Obamacare, hiding from the Congress crucial details about the Iran fiasco, his discriminatory pontifications, his accomplices doing his dirty work in Department of Injustice, Internal Revenue Service, EPA, etc. His Democrats of today turn people off by being 100% unified and petrified (as in stone) on anything but what they insist on. No wonder, for most Congressional Republicans are wet rags led by spineless, progressive-minded McConnell and Ryan, who, temporarily, still have enough support from their likeminded muddleheaded colleagues to maintain their pathetic “leadership”.

Other factors besides “lack of candor”:1)The impossibility of comprehending the world’s chaotic complexities—from race relations to global warming to climate change to inserting wisdom into unsolvable wars. The lowly elites with their grand intentions serve up wonderful solutions, then retire yearly to Davos to propose new idiocies to re-solve old declared “crises”, to solve present ones, and to pre-solve future ones.

2)The stupidity of thinking that governing a borderless global world is possible by destroying identities of non-global entities.

3)The groupthink of the many elites we read every week in Project Syndicate.

4)The haughtiness of the idealistic professorial-type thinker who believes (without thinking) that being an economist, for instance, gives her the ability and standing to preach silliness in other fields.

5)The elites’ indifference to the difference between themselves, who dine free and fat at swank dinners and play in urban oases, who have never dug a trench, and the normal workadays who struggle to pay the oases’ bills.

6)The constant and primary feel-good concern with the sick, weak and poor, while forgetting the practical asymptotic limits, and strangling slowly and surely, the goose.

7)A)Forgetting that Communist China is communist, and what communism remains—a deadly dictatorship—and feeling so wonderful about rubbing elbows with the purveyors of its deadly goals and crowing at home about sharing chopsticks, despite Communist China’s bullying those closest to it, bulging its borders, and readying itself to bully the world, as communists do. B)Uncaring that Putinist Russia is ruled exactly as one would expect from a thoroughbred KGB deviant, and accepting his cruel flagrant aggression, instead of the Free World realizing his dangerous presence in the world, and stopping him. (It is doubtful, however, happily for CC and PR, that there remains such a thing as a “Free World”, since it is now sickenly led about by the nose by the internationally itinerant 5-star hotel academic, NGO, UN, media, political and groupie elites, who smilingly kowtow to the Xi’s and Putin’s of the world in the name of diplomacy while diplomacy against venality of useless.)

The problem boils down to the omniscient elites’ self-serving, tunnel-vision arrogance, whose idealist microscope is focused on a mirror in which their importance and influence is aggrandized, which they satisfyingly force down the ever-shrinking gullet of their presumed subjects in the name of caring. “Elite” carries with it an odor unwelcomed.

“How to Combat Populist Demagogues”? Correcting the abusive behaviors above would be a beginning.

Sorry, Michael Public, but you unclearly read into my comment “anger”, something that was nonexistent when I wrote it. I responded to the topic of the article with facts and observations of how I view the failings of those noneffective “elites” to whom the article is addressed, those who fail for more reasons than “lack of candor”, though that should be reason enough to wisely doubt their words, acts, and them. If you disagree, and have you own countervailing facts or opinions, you are free to express them, whether from anger, if you prefer, or not.

Pursuing the national interest as what politicians are elected to do? Most voters expect politicians to pursue the voter’s special interest. Neither politicians nor the electorate consider that the essence of patriotism involves subordinating their special interest to the national interest. One could even argue that liberal theory assumes an “invisible hand” to turn collective individual interests into the national interest. Civic duty may once have been considered a necessary element, but ignoring its role is part of the price the lack of candor is exacting.

No puzzle at all Mr. Rodrik, The centrist politicians are PROVEN liars. Bluntly no centrists politician is considered to be anything but a puppet for special interests which are inevitably controlled by the rich and connected. For all their claims voting for any centrist is voting for the status quo or more of the same if you will. When more of the same is trying to grab on to the porcelain before you go down the toilet why would you vote for it?? Sure Hillary made all the right noises but she was a PROVEN LIAR. And not referring to Benghazi, Her personal server or what ever other Scandal Rush & Bannon where proclaiming. I am referring to the policies she and Bill carried out during their previous tour in the White house. You know the policies that did wonderful things for Corporations, Bankers, The Rich and the Well connected for those of us who worked for unmitigated disaster. All of this while they proclaimed what a wonderful deal it was for a working class. People don't forget!

I didn't vote for Trump but I sure as H=LL wouldn't vote for Hillary either. I voted for Johnson under the theory a Stoner was least evil choice. I must ask Mr. Rodrik even if Hillary had proclaimed "She would no longer take a dime from Wall Street or would not sign another trade agreement if elected." Who on Earth would have believed her??

Lastly and I suppose I should address this has a General question: Why on Earth should anyone with enough sense to poor Urine out of a boot with directions written on heel believe that a Centrist politician any Centrist politician will do anything but what his big donors tell him to like a good little puppet? After all that has been the track record of every President for at least 40 years?????? Personally I don't see a solution. Which I believe will lead to the Election of a demagogue in 2020 or 2024 that will make Donald Trump look like centrist lamb. The losers of our dysfunctional system are bitter, their pissed off and they will want change any change in the system that benefits the few at the expense of the majority. And they don't care if that change comes with Jackboots, Brownshirts and Secret Police. After all what do they have to lose? Their Job at Walmart if the current system has left them with even that.

One should also recognize that Trump's role in the immigration is to bring his base along on the amnesty that must accompany a reduction in numbers, legal and illegal, and a shift to skills. Things like the Phoenix speech are needed to do that,

Steve, Trump has greatly depressed net immigration, which his base strongly desires. He is shifting the Federal judiciary to the right: not just the Supreme Court but also the appellate judges. He has rolled back a lot of regulations. He withdrew from the TPP and is renegotiating NAFTA. He has effectively withdrawn from the Paris climate accord. He is presiding over an economy that is maybe a shade better than Obama's and a stock market that has gone crazy. I disapprove of most of these things, but I am a member of the reality oriented community.

The basic argument seems to be right, but not the American and European analysis. First, the globalization in EU should be combined with democracy--at the European level. But the purpose of EU and the Euro was to selectively de-democratize the poorer countries, and they certainly are not going to be given the vote.

Second, "populist" in American politics means democratic and New Deal. On economic questions, Trump is way to the left of the Clintons and well to the left of Obama. That is why the wealthy suburbanites are so hysterical about him. They call Ryancare Trumpcare and say the same about Ryan's tax plan. Things will look differently a year from now and much different in 20

I love most articles by Dani Rodrik, but this one is fatally flawed by 'explanation, .. that is fully consistent with rationality and self-interest'. No such explanation can have a true relation to the behavior of human beings. First and foremost real human beings fundamentally are not very rational in behavior, as any casual observer can verify. Second teh 'self-interest' argument can usually be so constructed to make any behavior 'self-interested', even including such things as altruistic behavior and suicide. The third flaw is to try to explain every human choice in society (including all politics) as an economi choice. This is the well known 'man-with-a-hammer'-syndrome of many economists.

Dani Rodrik is the one noted for pointing out the importance of choosing the right economic model. In this case he however he uses the choosing of a specific model as a sort of 'proof' that it is a good explanation because it is 'fully consistent with ...'. In this case it is not at all obvious we need to choose a model that abstracts away from real human beings in such a rude way. To the contrary, since we are not studying an economic problem but a full human behavior problem it makes much more sense to use a proper model of human behavior, not a version of the 'homo economicus'.

People vote with all of their being: rationality, subconscious, click-zoom biases, beliefs and feelings.

I was wondering who commented to that statement. So, when I returned to college, I observed that many young people did not want to be involved in politics at all until after the most recent depression, because both parties were perceived as equally dubious.

By the same token, most of my libertarian friends flocked to the Tea Party, and then Trump after Obama was elected/re-elected for similar reasons. People didn't want to talk politics when out socializing back then because things would end in heated arguments or hurt feelings, and they still don't want to. I would say there is definitely a marginalizing and polarizing effect in politics and economics that is still happening today in the US.

It is democracy and globalisation which are incompatible. The polls show that countries negatively impacted by globalisation lean towards anti-globalisation, those that benefit, mainly Asian countries, but some others, lean towards pro-globalisation. The only mechanism to address this in anti-globalisation leaning countries is democracy. National sovereignty is simply a subset of democracy as it is a common identity of an affected group. So it is a simple choice, democracy or globalisation. That is why the EU can French kiss a long goodbye to Federalisation because that is associated with an attack on democracy. That some politicians and elite cannot get their head around this just says they are plain dumb and disconnected. For the voter what is left is the remains of the day for they will not want to vote for advocates of globalism or a status quo which damages them.

THE ESTABLISHMENT CAN SUCCEED - IF SUCCESSFULThe author nails The Establishment - HRC was more of the same.Inequality had created a Marginalized Majority - and they voted for departure.Globalization was not the cause - Inequality was.The Elites tried obfuscation when they tried shifting the blame to Globalization.Inequality is palpable - Trade and Globalization is not.Democracy offers the Marginalized Majority - the option to depart.Candidate Trump represented Departure - out with The Establishment.Candidate Macron represented Departure - out with The Establishment.Candidate Modi represented Departure - out with The Establishment.Brexit represented Departure - out with The Establishment.

Trump could have been defeated - by Caroline Kennedy, not HRC.Kennedy would have been Departure - like Macron, a reminder of Camelot.But the real victory is only possible - by Real Remedy for Inequality.Obfuscation in the Internet Era is impossible - Social Media is savvy.By harnessing Nobel Laureates that addressed Inequality.Departures from failed Establishment was possible.The Establishment cannot hide behind failures anymore.Successful Establishment needs no obfuscation - Angela Merkel won fourth time.

Jagjeet, can I suggest that inequality is a direct outcome from the matrix of - the mobility of capital (which has accelerated), the immobility of local labour (a traditional characteristic, collapsed industry leaves stranded communities), and the movement of the labour supply and demand point by access to effectively infinite labour supply (via globalisation), coupled with a total lack of compensatory effects for the disenfranchised (government - pathetic strategy and inappropriate commercial lobbying). If you have mobility - which capital has more so than ever before - then dealing with a changing environment is possible. However if you have limited mobility, which many people do have, then you remain rooted in a deteriorating environment, and in particular with the induction of cheap overseas labour you remain uncompetitive. There are likely ways of dealing with this but they require focused government long term strategy and determination which is alien to the current incumbents because it involves a reduction in the unearned beneficial advantages awarded to winners domestically and requires significant parliamentary domination unavailable in fractionalised politics.

M M Be nice to hear I was way off. You will have noted that each part of the matrix is difficult to dislodge and fractionalised politics is in growth. There are signs of quiet realisation of what has to be dealt with but it is slow and it seems every attempt at a step forward is opposed by someone which has to be expected with common denominator problems